To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free?
Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Let us start with what he gets right: The United States might have stolen IP from Britain. The problem then was that there were no international intellectual property regimes. They did not exist. Everyone stole from everyone. Germany stole from Britain too. Ask Ha-Joon Chang. That is what he documented in his book, 'Kicking away the ladder'.

But, now, right or wrong, fair or unfair, we have international laws and countries voluntarily sign up to them, because they want the technology and hence, they sign up to complying with transfer restrictions to other nations.

Now that nations sign up to international agreements, they cannot go back and cite precedence from another period when no framework existed.

If they had no intention of complying and did not sign the agreements, then, it would have meant that they signed up to the philosophy of 'might is right'. Then, it becomes a law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. There is no role for op.-eds. and economists. We can watch the slugfest.

Indeed, that is the conclusion that Prof. Rodrik's arguments are leading us to. China is not claiming that it is not cheating nor is Prof. Rodrik claiming that China is not cheating. But, he is questioning the actions that the U.S. Government is taking. Where would that lead to? Only the jungle.

Prof. Rodrik has written often enough that economics rules and laws operate within the prevailing social and political contexts. Hence, to cite precedence from another era and another context must sound very unconvincing, even to him.

The context is indeed different now in another aspect too. Technology - beneficial and menacing - has advanced tremendously. There are chemical, biological and nuclear technologies that can cause tremendous damage. Hence, stealing them and propagating them to nations that do not have a record of responsible deployment (not just against the rest of the world but against their own people) is immoral and actually, they tantamount to crimes against humanity. These are not morally equivalent to and are far different from stealing technology for sewing machines during times when no intellectual property regime existed.

If one can hazard a guess as to why Prof. Rodrik wrote this piece, we get clues from his concluding lines. Prof. Rodrik writes that many liberal commentators question Trump's methods but not his goals. He wanted to differentiate himself by criticisng both.

In dong so, he falls well short of the analytical and logical rigour that one has come to expect of him.

"After all, China’s phenomenal globalization success is due as much to the regime’s unorthodox and creative industrial policies as it is to economic liberalization."

No truer sentence could be written about China's recent economic development. And no true sentence could be written about Western misconceptions about what China's entry into the WTO would mean for China's economic development.

At the early stages of this development these different perceptions scarcely mattered since China exported products of cheap labor into an apparently insatiable global economy, while privatizing most of its non-strategic economic sectors and dramatically raising living standards. Now they matter a lot, as China evolves into a more mature economy in which capital-intensive sectors gain greater importance.

China has no intention of prioritizing the profits of global free enterprise, even in the name of fairness or past agreements, over these unorthodox industrial policies that have produced the fastest rising living standards in global history.

"Any sensible international trade regime must start from the recognition that it is neither feasible nor desirable to restrict the policy space countries have to design their own economic and social models."

Indeed, including the desire to not have chronic trade-deficits because they distort your economy in favor of finance, industry and real-estate, which tend to cause bubbles, and also because they cause over-indebtedness in your private sector. Therefore protecting your domestic industry against predatory foreign competition is perfectly logical.

Or for putting all the blame on exports from China (which make up a small fraction of U.S. GDP), while exempting U.S. domestic policies for responsibility for distorting all "finance, industry and real-estate which tend to cause bubbles," and also for "over-indebtedness in our private sector."

No one has restricted us from designing "our own economic and social models." So why should we complain? Of course, we're still big enough to threaten others in order to defend these models, but maybe not for too long....

Double standard is the standard, when such as U.S. pirates, does it for a good cause, when it's done against U.S. is piracy means crime. The ones who accuse China for colonizing Africa were the colonizers of continents ironically.

The job of government is to promote the long-term interest of consumers and workers, not to make life easy for firm. That is Competition Policy 101. Yet many Western commentators (whom I greatly respect) seem to conflate corporate interests with the interest of the people.

Perhaps it shows the strong hold that corporate interests have over Western political system. No wonder wealth distribution in the US and many Western countries have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the 1%.

The global order ought to promote global growth that is inclusive both within countries and across countries. It is not growth per se that we value. I look forward to a world to come when all peoples, Western and non-Western, have broadly equal standards of living, and equal freedoms to live lives and pursue goals that they each have reason to value.

'The fact that many of China’s policies violate WTO rules is plain enough.'

No. It's not. If Chinese policies had violated the humiliating WTO rules which the US spent 12 years crafting, then the US would have and–with its overwhelming legal firepower and experience–could have brought suit against China either in the WTO courts themselves, or under TRIPS.

It didn't, because it was plain enough to our trade officials that China’s policies did not violate WTO rules.

People in rich countries often seem to assume that their countries are rich because of good policies and/or superior habits of their populace, and that they therefore deserve their wealth. Any country catching up to them must be cheating. They fail to understand that the real cause of their wealth is luck. They were fortunate enough to develop industrial clusters early, and those clusters build on themselves.

Let's stop trying to shut the door on those who are now entering. We won't succeed anyway, and the whole world will be more prosperous if it is less unequal.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.